The judgment highlights the mandatory requirement for the plaintiff to prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract, as well as the discretionary nature of specific performance under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act.

S.VIMALA, J.

The unsuccessful plaintiff, for whom the relief of specific performance was denied by the trial court, is the appellant.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance seeking direction to the defendants to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, pursuant to the sale agreement executed between the plaintiff and the deceased Velusamy. The legal representatives of the deceased Velusamy are the defendants. The first defendant is the son, second defendant is the wife and the third defendant is the daughter of the deceased Velusamy.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The deceased Velusamy and the plaintiff entered into the sale agreement dated 8.8.2003, with regard to the suit property measuring an extent of 2.00 acresof land, each acre having been priced at Rs.34.50 lakhs. Towards payment of advance, Rs.1,00,000/- was paid by cash and Rs.9 lakhs was paid by way of cheque. Prior to the suit sale agreement dated 8.8.2003, the deceased had entered into a sale agreement with regard to the very same property with one Ravichandran and also had received some consideration. Under the suit sale agreement, the deceased was under an obligation to give the property free from encumbrance. The deceased had promised to clear the encumbrance, but, he could not settle the issue with Ravichandran. Therefore, the plaintiff instructed the bankers not to honour the cheque if and when it is presented by the deceased Velusamy and therefore, at his instruction, the banker dishonored the cheque. Despite the defendants evading to settle the issue with Ravichandran, the plaintiff gave a sum of Rs.9 lakhs by way of cash and got back the dishonoured cheque.

3.1. The case of the plaintiff is that he paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-to Ravichandran towards settlement of the earlier sale agreement dated 12.6.1994 and got the endorsement of payment on 16.4.2004. The son of the deceased Velusamy took the original sale agreement from the plaintiff, on the guise of obtaining endorsement for receipt of money, but did not return the sale agreement. In the mean time, the plaintiff issued a paper publication in Dinamalar cautioning the public not to purchase the suit property. On 20.6.2004, there was yet another paper publication issued at the behest of one Senniappan, giving alert to the public that he is intending to purchase the very same property. On 3.10.2004, the plaintiff issued paper publication controvertingthe averments made in the paper publication issued by Senniappan. The plaintiff also issued notice to the defendants through his counsel calling upon them to settle the matter with Ravichandran and then to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant issued a reply notice under Ex.A2 making clear of his intention to sell the property in favour Senniappa Gounder and that he would not execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, as he is not entitled to get the sale deed executed. Finding no other way out, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance.

4. The defendant contested the suit on the following grounds:

a) The plaintiff is not entitled to specific performance because (a) By virtue of the express terms and conditions of the sale agreement dated 8.8.2003, time was made as essence of contract and the plaintiff having failed to perform his part of the contract within the stipulated time of six months and as he is guilty of breach of obligations undertaken by him in the sale agreement, he must be non-suited.

(b) The dishonour of cheque issued by the plaintiff for Rs.9,00,000/- will speak about the insolvent condition of the plaintiff apart from showing the unwillingness on the part of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract. The inability of plaintiff even to pay the balance of advance amount Rs.9,00,000/- will bring to light his financial incapacity.

(c) The plaintiff did not pay Rs.2,00,000/-to Ravichndran, the earlier agreement holder and if really it had been re